Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Am I?
Townhall.com ^ | April 07, 2010 | John Stossel

Posted on 04/08/2010 7:21:50 AM PDT by Onelifetogive

I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

For my FBN show tomorrow, I ask some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...

"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.

"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: johnstossel; libertarian; libertarianism; stossel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're...anti-abortion.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

John, I love your way of thinking, except you need to figure out your inconsistency here!

1 posted on 04/08/2010 7:21:50 AM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

What about borders? Do libertarians really think open borders will lead to a better country or its destruction?

“Right to Life...” Oops, I guess Libertarians go blind at that part.

What about, say, the age of consent?

Things like that.


2 posted on 04/08/2010 7:24:14 AM PDT by GeronL (There is only a "Happily ever after" for you if you're the one writing your own script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Actually, the best way to define politics in our nation is to define them relative to the constitution. Work from a constitutional initial point.

see my tagline - - let me know what you think.


3 posted on 04/08/2010 7:27:10 AM PDT by Loud Mime (initialpoints.net - - The Constitution as the center of politics -- Download the graph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I see the date but this sounds suspiciously like another article posted on FR not long ago.


4 posted on 04/08/2010 7:28:19 AM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Start here:

Whether you are Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, this pastor sums it up for me.
“NO ONE HAS GREATER LOVE THAN

THIS, TO LAY DOWN ONE’S LIFE FOR ONE’S FRIENDS.” JOHN 15:13 Amen.
It’s a good day when the clergy begin to resume their proper role in shepherding believers.

Dr.David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.

Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it. I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000.
(the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American
citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy
who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the health care system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America .”
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
“Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe. “In GOD We Trust”
“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan
I WANT THE AMERICA I GREW UP IN BACK....
In GOD We Trust........


5 posted on 04/08/2010 7:30:10 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

“What Am I?”

Start with “American”....whatever you work out from there, you can’t go wrong!

Militant


6 posted on 04/08/2010 7:31:21 AM PDT by militant2 (I may not agree with everything you say, but......hell, I don't agree with anything you say!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

Already posted with 200+ replies

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2488190/posts


7 posted on 04/08/2010 7:32:00 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Fine.

But that will never win over the liberals, which is one thing that we must do. We have to make them think.


8 posted on 04/08/2010 7:32:58 AM PDT by Loud Mime (initialpoints.net - - The Constitution as the center of politics -- Download the graph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I used to think I was a libertarian.
Then I grew up, got married and had kids. Now I’m plain ol’ conservative.
I have learned that most “victimless crimes” are not victimless. The consequences of “victimless crimes” often snowball destroying lives and families, and leading to crime and violence.
For the most part, I’m for leaving people alone, but I have also learned that some people can’t be left alone for a second without them doing something exceedingly stupid. This wouldn’t be a problem except than the consequences of these stupid actions aren’t victimless either, and that getting redress for them is nearly impossible.
I’ll settle for being a God and Country conservative.


9 posted on 04/08/2010 7:33:32 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Given

(1) the status quo, semi-porous borders with massive welfare state benefits and anchor baby citizenship, or

(2) open borders with neither of those

(1) is far and away the worst.

10 posted on 04/08/2010 7:33:43 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Wow, i'm actually urprised no Paulbots have come to rant and rave.

I figured this thread would attract Paulbots like 0bama attracts welfare recipients.

11 posted on 04/08/2010 7:34:46 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

John is using a bit of a straw-man argument in his characterization of conservatives here.
1. - "pro-drug war" - is an over-simplification of the conservative position of being rule-of-law and recognizing one of the few legitimate roles of government is in enforcing the laws that have been passed by a representative republic, especially in the area of protecting citizens from criminal acts.
2. - "pro-immigration-restriction" - is either an oversimplification of or a misrepresentation of the position that one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect our borders and manage immigration into this country. People who enter the country illegally, and then consume resources and services that must be paid for by the taxpayers are a drain on our economic system. Furthermore, the illegal immigration racket contributes to more violent crime and property destruction.
3. - "anti-abortion" - Even a libertarian who recognizes an unborn child as a human with the God-given right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness would oppose abortion on demand.
4. - "support nation building" - another one of the few legitimate roles of government under the Constitution is national defense. Where international intervention is strategically appropriate for our national security, conservatives recognize it as a legitimate activity of our government, even if some would characterize it as "nation-building".

12 posted on 04/08/2010 7:34:56 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Gun Control - the ability to consistently hit the intended target)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

If they don’t consider this, then they are pretty stupid. What they should do is answer this, even if to themselves.


13 posted on 04/08/2010 7:35:55 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

The good news about Stossel is that he is an outside-the-box free thinker, which absolutely cannot be said for libs.

I’m convinced he’s also an atheist or agnostic who fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list.

I like the fact that he’s sees things through the lense of open possibilities and seems to have no political filter, as it were. He is quite a bit off in his over simplification of conservatism.


14 posted on 04/08/2010 7:36:36 AM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

The good news about Stossel is that he is an outside-the-box free thinker, which absolutely cannot be said for libs.

I’m convinced he’s also an atheist or agnostic who fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list.

I like the fact that he’s sees things through the lense of open possibilities and seems to have no political filter, as it were. He is quite a bit off in his over simplification of conservatism.


15 posted on 04/08/2010 7:36:50 AM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

RE, Right-to-life. Political reality is that abortion will never be eliminated, and we have to consider both the mother and the child. Some libertarian views only consider the mother, which falsely excludes the unborn child. But as with any pollitical group, there is a wide range of beliefs. The libertarian viewpoint is more reflective of the founding fathers. Limited government and a leave-me-alone attitude. Individual responsibility, individual reliance.


16 posted on 04/08/2010 7:36:51 AM PDT by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Read this earlier, and the part that jumped out at me was " ...conservatives... say they're for limited government, but they're... pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion..."
Immigration restriction?! Not immigration. ILLEGAL immigration. A HUGE difference. One of the few responsibilities the federal government is (or should be) responsible for.
Abortion? Should not be a federal issue.
I think he's missing the distinction between limited government and constitutional government.

17 posted on 04/08/2010 7:38:02 AM PDT by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

Do libertarians have arguments over who is a real libertarian? Are they waiting for a leader who is pure?


18 posted on 04/08/2010 7:40:01 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

“”Instead of asking, ‘What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?’ The first question is, ‘Why is this a rich country?’”

While there are countless good arguments that can be made for conservatism, most don’t work well with people who only think in stereotypes (liberals are generous, conservatives are mean, etc.) I have found that two work better than any other. The type of question used here just doesn’t work too well, IMO. Most people shrug it off, or have bumper-sticker level answers.

My first general approach is to point out that government is not designed to solve problems. It is designed to perpetuate them. If you want to solve poverty, the last thing you want to do is ask the govt. to do so. Not only will poverty get worse, but it becomes unsolvable by other means. (Which can lead to the nice follow up question — why do you want to perpetuate poverty?)

My second approach (which I personally like :) ) is to turn the tables on them. IE “so you are for Obama’s health care plan? Why are you so selfish? You are asking millions to suffer needlessly, just so you feel better about yourself?” Done subtly, this can be very devastating to those fashionable left-leading people who never really analyze the issue. Surprisingly, I have turned quite a few people this way.


19 posted on 04/08/2010 7:41:28 AM PDT by jjsheridan5 ('You can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I am a FISCAL libertarian.Period.


20 posted on 04/08/2010 7:49:09 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

21 posted on 04/08/2010 8:14:47 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

I'm for all of this - but I also believe a government has the responsibility to control national borders and regulate immigration, or the concept of a nation for the government to govern is meaningless. Nation-building is often essential - certainly the current day governments and societies of Germany and Japan have been heavily influenced by post-WWII American nation-building efforts, to our benefit. When libertarians start preaching head-in-the-sand isolationism, they lose me.
22 posted on 04/08/2010 8:37:36 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rstrahan

I doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of abortion for convenience.


23 posted on 04/08/2010 8:39:07 AM PDT by GeronL (There is only a "Happily ever after" for you if you're the one writing your own script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

I like the tagline. If the Constitution were followed, we’d have very different political parties for sure.


24 posted on 04/08/2010 8:40:43 AM PDT by GeronL (There is only a "Happily ever after" for you if you're the one writing your own script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

The problem I have with libertarians is that they are often illogical and inconsistent in their application of their stated core principles of keeping the government out of the way and maximizing the liberty of the individual also they entirely disregard ideas of natural rights versus trumped up government designed rights that have a primary purpose of restricting the rights of others to associate and exercise free speech as their conscience dictates.

An libertarian if true to their principles would be steadfastly pro-life especially when concerning a normal health pregnancy. This would be based on a simple idea that an unborn child should no more be deprived of liberty than a born child regardless of the will of the parents. A libertarian would hardly support the idea that parents or communities should be able to kill or sacrifice babies who have not achieved independent person-hood simple because it does not directly impact the liberties of others. A libertarian I would think would be clear on this and would see the danger of allowing any ambiguity on such a critical issue of liberty as it relates to individuals.

Also libertarians even if they do not agree with all points on the above issue should at a minimum object to the idea of a government using tax payers money to encourage or provide abortions in any case. They should also stand solidly against the government disregarding the natural rights of parents in concern for the well being of minor children for whom they are responsible for. They should object to the government intrusion into issues of privacy, sexuality, religion, and health in relation to these minors without parental consent and without any evidence of explicit danger to the child.

Libertarians also should be entirely opposed to efforts of the government intrusion in the freedom to associate and on clear grounds oppose thought crime laws and on purist grounds oppose efforts to force the acceptance of such ideas as gay marriage and the creation of laws to silence and intimidate those who disagree.


25 posted on 04/08/2010 8:40:53 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Some want to enslave your body others your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Misinformation about libertarians is rampant. Open borders? Well, the GOP hasn’t done much about that problem, mainly because they like cheap labor. I think eventually Mexico must be made part of the US. Right to life? That’s a moral issue, and as a libertarian I believe abortion is murder of the innocent. There isn’t going to be a government solution to that one either. Age of consent? When you have the government selectively enforcing arbitrary standards based strictly on age, the results haven’t been very good either. Personal responsibility is the answer to all of these problems. If you need the government to enforce morals like not invading other people’s countries, not murdering innocent unborn babies, not talking advantage of immature girls, then you’re admitting you’ve lost the battle. Libertarians don’t support any of those behaviors, they believe that the government won’t solve every human problem, in fact, they almost always make the problem worse.


26 posted on 04/08/2010 8:48:57 AM PDT by rockhardo (Socialism creates its own hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Please, leave the name-calling to the liberals. What specifically about Ron Paul’s ideas don’t you like?


27 posted on 04/08/2010 8:53:16 AM PDT by rockhardo (Socialism creates its own hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
"I’m convinced he’s also an atheist or agnostic who fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list. . . . He is quite a bit off in his over simplification of conservatism."

How does it follow that an agnostic fails to appreciate the sanctity of life? My take on libertarianism is that it prizes life more highly than any other political ideology, inasmuch as it puts individual liberty at the top. Also, specifically how is he "off" on his opinion of conservatism?

28 posted on 04/08/2010 8:57:47 AM PDT by rockhardo (Socialism creates its own hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bgill
I see the date but this sounds suspiciously like another article posted on FR not long ago.

I searched the title...

Stossel is lately making a big point of his libertarianism.

29 posted on 04/08/2010 9:03:53 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Already posted with 200+ replies

I searched the title. I think the search routine has trouble with the title have a very common word and two other words shorter than 3 letters.

I searched again, by title, and it finds neither one! Maybe I'm doing it wrong...

30 posted on 04/08/2010 9:10:14 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I have learned that most “victimless crimes” are not victimless. The consequences of “victimless crimes” often snowball destroying lives and families, and leading to crime and violence.

I struggle with this. I don't want to tell people what to do with their lives, but I also don't want to be in their "collateral damage zone."

31 posted on 04/08/2010 9:14:03 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rockhardo
Also, specifically how is he "off" on his opinion of conservatism?

I think post 12 covers that pretty well.

32 posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:48 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I sometimes wonder whether the FR search function could find a moth with a searchlight.


33 posted on 04/08/2010 9:34:59 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

That’s the problem.

You can’t get out of the collateral damage zone. Even if you dodge the bullet, there are friends and family to consider. Tolerate a druggie, and he can turn your neighborhood into a toxic waste dump brewing meth. Tolerate prostitutes, and they can spread disease. Tolerate scumbags in your neighborhoods and property values can go to hell.

I love L. Neil Smith’s books. My idea of paradise is his “North American Confederation.” But I know it won’t work. People don’t just “mind their own business” and their behaviors don’t affect just themselves. Anarchy doesn’t work. It ends up like Somalia.


34 posted on 04/08/2010 9:36:02 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rockhardo
lack of support for the War in Iraq

doesn' recognize marriage as one man + one woman (voted against it; and voted against homo marriage ban)

opposes death penalty at state and fed level

supports alternatives to prison

Doesn't support US mission in SKorea

Anti-Israel

Thinks gun manufacturers can be sued because someone else misused a gun

voted against a law banning the transport of minors accross state lines for abortions

And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselves.....

....and he's a truther

So, in otherwords, America shouldn't stand up for itself, and can't attack a country plotting and preparing to attack us. That's like standing there going "come on come one, hit me." And waiting for the other guy to land a knock out punch; just so you can say he hit me first.

He also thinks we shouldn't maintain the peace where our men have died to preserve (and can project US strength from), wouldn't mind if the communists wiped out SKorea at the hands of China and Russia. Believes I should have to wait for gun, yet if someone kills me during my waiting period, they shouldn't be executed and may possibly get "alternative punishment." But, don't worry my parents/wife can still sue Colt because my killer misused an evil gun.

All the while allowing the state MORE authority to engage in marriage (a religious insitution the state has no business in) that the fag lobby can use to pressure churches into "marrying" fags.

Essentially Ron Paul is a pascifist, commie tolerating liberal, that believes we can rehabilitate even the most vile criminals..... just don't tell him what to do.... ie a spoiled brat from the 60s that never grew up

No thanks.

35 posted on 04/08/2010 9:40:42 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list

I think there are a lot of us who appreciate the sanctity of life, but recognize that there is not much we can do about it at the national political level.

As many babies have been killed, year upon year, under Christian, pro-life Presidents as there have been under the opposition.

The culture is changing from a pro-abortion to a pro-life viewpoint. It will reach critical mass when enough hearts have been changed.

36 posted on 04/08/2010 9:40:45 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Do libertarians have arguments over who is a real libertarian? Are they waiting for a leader who is pure?

"libertarians" do not.

But "Libertarians" do.

Boy, do they ever.

It makes the arguments on FR about who is a RINO look like a cordial Sunday afternoon game of croquet.

One of the reasons I left the Libertarian Party after a brief membership in the early '90s.

37 posted on 04/08/2010 9:45:26 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
"I am a FISCAL libertarian.Period."

Cool! Cafeteria-style libertarianism.

Personally I prefer my libertarianism wrapped in bacon with a pat of real butter melting on top.

38 posted on 04/08/2010 9:48:01 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

bfl


39 posted on 04/08/2010 9:59:53 AM PDT by Badray (sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

you sure can talk buddy.


40 posted on 04/08/2010 10:07:26 AM PDT by TexasFirecracker ("Reach for the sky, ya yella-bellied, lily-livered varmint!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I often resort to Google search for the article headline and include +FreeRepublic at the end of the search.

Seems to work very well and Google comes up with links to posts that were just posted minutes earlier.


41 posted on 04/08/2010 10:11:22 AM PDT by listenhillary (Capitalism = billions raised from poverty, Socialism = billions reduced to starvation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TexasFirecracker
you sure can talk buddy.

Everyone, please meet MRS. RO....... giving me a good ribbing while I'm away.

Please no one explain to her "guilty" or "not guilty" ;)

42 posted on 04/08/2010 10:14:40 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I don’t use the term “liberal” any more because of the mutation away from its roots.
They’re “Leftists” - an otherwise baseless term identifying “that crowd” who, based on their narcissistic stupidity, have no sane connection to any classic sociopolitical identifier.


43 posted on 04/08/2010 10:17:19 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockhardo
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

"...conserve traditional values"?? We want the government out of our everyday lives. We want finacial freedom from excess taxes that support entitlements to freeloaders. We want the Constitution to be held sacrosanct by the ALL branches of government. Want all life to be considered precious. We want parents to make the decisions in the upbringing of their children. We view freedom as a God-given right, completely separate from the government. I could go on...as I said, he over-simplifies what it means to be a conservative. Liberal=bigger government less freedom. They're simple to encapsulate. Conservative=smaller goverernment and a whole lot more.

44 posted on 04/08/2010 10:21:28 AM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Tolerate scumbags in your neighborhoods and property values can go to hell.

(1) I don't think "being a scumbag" is a criminal offense. What exactly did you have in mind.

(2) Americans have the right to own property, but not a right to have its "value" guaranteed. It's a mistaken concept to think that "property values" are some sort of entitlement which the government is required to protect.

45 posted on 04/08/2010 10:22:36 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

ping


46 posted on 04/08/2010 10:34:13 AM PDT by acw011 (Great Goooogly Mooogly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender
-lack of support for the War in Iraq Agree w/ Paul, Iraq was a huge mistake
-doesn't recognize marriage as one man + one woman You mean he doesn't support laws giving the government the right to define what marriage is? I don't want the government to have that power either.
-opposes death penalty at state and fed level. As a practical matter, the death penalty only enriches lawyers. (except in Texas)
-supports alternatives to prison. In some cases, I might agree, esp. drug related
-Doesn't support US mission in SKorea Agree w/ Paul. 50+ years is enough. Let Japan take over.
-Anti-Israel. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position.
-Thinks gun manufacturers can be sued because someone else misused a gunWell, he's right, they can be sued. You can sue anybody for anything. Does he think they should be sued, or that they should pay?
-voted against a law banning the transport of minors accross state lines for abortions I think Paul recognizes that you are not going to stop abortions with un-enforceable laws. This law would give the federal government power to restrict interstate travel. Not a good idea, although the cause is noble.
-And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselves. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position. He believes in non-intervention. I think the drone campaign is where we should have been all along.
..and he's a truther Whatever that means.

Bottom line, I don't see anything radical here. Denying the governnment more power doesn't equate to supporting the opposite position on an issue. Opposing gun control laws doesn't mean you are in favor of murder. That's a trick the liberals play all the time.

47 posted on 04/08/2010 12:53:53 PM PDT by rockhardo (Socialism creates its own hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
Stossel: "We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

downtown:
"...conserve traditional values"?? We want the government out of our everyday lives. . . . he over-simplifies what it means to be a conservative. "

Maybe so, but that's beside the point. You didn't address Stossel's statement. Conservatives do NOT want the government out of our daily lives. In fact, conservatives want the government in the daily lives of a lot of other people too, for example Iraq, Germany, Japan, S. Korea . . . Conservatives want the government to tell me who to sleep/not sleep with, what substances not to put in my body, and a lot of other things. That's not an oversimplification, it's a fact, and it's the reason so many people who otherwise support ideas like fiscal responsibility and limited government power find conservatism distasteful.

Think of libertarians as conservatives who don't want the government dictating stuff that's none of their business.

48 posted on 04/08/2010 1:10:00 PM PDT by rockhardo (Socialism creates its own hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Being a scumbag isn’t directly a criminal offense; however there are things called “zoning laws” that really peeve Libertarians. I used to agree with them, until they moved Section 8 renters into my neighborhood. Color me “NIMBY.”


49 posted on 04/08/2010 1:15:33 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rockhardo
Agree w/ Paul, Iraq was a huge mistake

This is one of the reasons why I will never support RP.... ever. It sure is fun being over there and having your Kongress backstab you and rant about pulling out the entire time. It's awesome when they continuously give hope to the enemy. And don't give me the support the troops but not the war nonsense.

I will never support RP.... or someone that is so wishy washy he comes out at n5atly 50% on every issue.

As a practical matter, the death penalty only enriches lawyers. (except in Texas)

Cool, than maybe my state shouldn't have executed the DC sniper.... maybe he could've lived with you as an alternative..... his life wasn't worth my tax dollars.

Anti-Israel. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position

Check his voting record.

And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselvesMay be a misrepresentation of Paul's position

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

From Ron Paul's mouth.......

9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia.

Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad

We have a de-facto draft; we can achieve more in peace *news to me.... I thought I volunteered*

Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries

Conscription is forced servitude--no draft for illegal wars

So 3000 Americans died on 9/11 because we have bases in Saudi... bases that are there at the welcome of the Saudi gov..... Good to know.

50 posted on 04/08/2010 7:08:51 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson